The Concept Of ‘Friendship’ In Late 18th – Early 19th Century Russia: Social Cohesion Reconsidered
The history of domestic violence, let alone domestic homicide, in Russia has yet to be written. This article focuses on the legal attitudes to domestic and especially marital homicide in early modern Russia and explores types of and methods used in spousal killings. The research is based on court records in addition to laws, legal documents and other sources. Its preliminary conclusions include assumptions about scale of domestic violence, gender of perpetrators and victims, main trends in domestic homicide and their connections with available explanatory frameworks. The study reveals that Russian households were violent places accounting for different types of assaults and homicides, but in all these acts women died more frequently than men. Marital homicide occurred in all social groups in Russia. Motives and methods for marital homicides were consistent with gendered theories of power relations. Penal policies also reveal harsher treatment of women than men, pointing to the gendered definitions of power disciplining methods.
Education in early modern Russia has been traditionally described as imported from the West; secular; imposed by the state – or more specifically, by Peter I himself – from above on the unwilling population; driven by the military needs, and therefore, technical. This chapter seeks to examine and to problematize some these theses. Some of them have already been re-assessed by scholars, especially insofar as the role of the church in providing education is concerned. In other cases, the discussion is limited to identifying the gaps in our current understanding and pointing to ways of addressing them. In particular, on the basis of he author's own research as well as that of other scholars, it seeks to outline the responses of the tsar’s subjects to the educational change; problematize the role of the “state” as an actor in this process, and that of Peter I himself; to understand what exactly is meant by the practical/military drivers of educational change and how exactly the role of these drivers could be ascertained; to emphasize the role of non-state, traditional, and informal genres and providers of education in that period. The last two sections seek to place the early modern education in Russia in the Western European context by identifying more precisely what exactly has been borrowed and how this “borrowing,” in fact, resulted in innovative reconfiguring of educational forms; and to discuss the role of early modern Russia as a pioneer, in some sense, of explicitly using education as a tool of social engineering.
Jews were the second largest ethno-confessional group in the “first wave” of Russian emigration, surpassed only by ethnic Russians. After the Nazi rise to power and especially after the beginning of World War II, the second stage of their wanderings started: from Germany to France, Belgium, Poland, Latvia, and from Europe to the US. Many had to change more than one country of residence in attempt to escape Nazi persecution. Not everyone, however, managed to flee. The present volume contains a voluminous correspondence of Alexis Goldenweiser (1890-1979), a lawyer, publicist, and public figure of emigration. In 1937, he moved from Berlin to New York and became a sort of intercessor in the affairs of Russian Jewish émigrés and a chronicler of their struggle for existence. Mark Aldanov, Iosif Gessen, Oskar Gruzenberg, Grigory Landau, Vladimir Nabokov, other prominent figures of emigration, as well as tens of “ordinary” émigrés were among Goldenweiser’s correspondents. The correspondence, kept at the Bakhmeteff Archive at Columbia University in New York, is a unique source on history of the Russian Jewish emigration on the eve and in the first years of the world catastrophe.
This is a volume of correspondence between Vasily Maklakov (1869-1957) and Mark Aldanov (1886-1957) that took place in the years 1929 to 1957. Maklakov was a defense lawyer, a member of the Central Committee of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a member of the 2nd-4th State Dumas, an ambassador of the Provisional Government to France (1917-1924). After the collapse of the Provisional Government he de facto represented various anti-Bolshevik governments, and later the interests of Russian exiles in France and other countries. Mark Aldanov was a writer and social commentator, one of the most popular writers of the “Russia abroad” and one of the leading Russian historical novelists of the XX century. The correspondence is a unique source on one of the least studied periods of Russian emigration – the post-war period. It contains information on the émigré discussions of attitudes towards the Soviet power, towards the Vlasov movement, and the problem of collaborationism in general, on the activity of various émigré political organizations, and about various prominent figures of the Russian emigration – Ivan Bunin, Alexandre Kerensky, Sergey Melgunov, Boris Nicolaevsky, and many others. The value of this correspondence extends beyond the fact that it is a wonderful source on the history of Russian political thought of the XX century, on the history and culture of the Russian emigration, and history of Russian literature. This is also a shining example of epistolary genre.
This article is about letters of Antoine Arnauld (1612-1694), eminent French theologian, an adept of the convent of Port-Royal, written in the occasion of death. Seventeenth century epistolary authors used to develop four consolatory arguments: reasons why we can expect that the deceased could be saved, idea that death isn’t an evil, the necessity to moderate one’s sorrow and, finally, the imperative to obey to God’s will. Our research showed that the originality of Arnauld’s letters is in abundant use evangelic images but also in the references to the important concepts of Augustinian thought.
The paper examines social differences in the understanding of the concept of ‘friendship’ in late 18th – early 19th century Russia deployed in the unpublished correspondence of Count Aleksandr Vorontsov, a member of the social elite of the Catherinean Age, and Aleksei D´iakonov, an obscure official who was Vorontsov’s client. While letter exchange was a kind of freemasonic practice, and both correspondents were members of a Masonic lodge, Vorontsov used sentimentalist language and addressed his client as “friend,” trying to erase or at least obscure the social boundaries between them. Social equality, even as a rhetorical formula, was progressively becoming possible between an aristocrat and an educated commoner such as D´iakonov, and it unfolded in rhetorical terms. D´iakonov adopted vis-à-vis his patron an attitude that reflected their respective positions on the hierarchical ladder, thus conforming to the traditional behavior of a Russian official and avoiding Western (Masonic, or sentimentalist) rhetoric of equality.
This article investigates eighteenth-century Russian legal thought on the criminalisation of sex and sexualities in light of Western European scholarship on the same themes. It reveals the background to and preconditions for the transfer of knowledge and intellectual frameworks that structured societal understandings of sexuality and, at the same time, created the mechanisms of social and legal control over such behaviour. The study shows that the absence of developed Russian legal philosophy did not prevent the development of a criminal law with the same goals as more developed jurisdictions. Commentaries on and classification of sex crimes in Russia followed patterns familiar to Western Europe and used similar definitions rooted in Christian moral philosophy and canon law. The concern with the proper, rational and orderly development of state and society, central to the era, meant that laws relating to the criminalisation of sex and sexuality were not liberalised.
Introduction to the extensive correspondence (1929-1957) of Vasily Maklakov and Mark Aldanov, the prominent figures of the Russian emigration.